Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 31, 2014.

BC13 (Brokencyde debut EP)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name is excessively disambiguated. Only one album released under this name has an article on Wikipedia (the other that comes even close, BC13 Mix, has been PRODded by me, and even if it weren't I can't imagine it would be difficult for readers to distinguish, and we could use hat notes if necessary). After moving the article to the name BC13 (EP), I manually changed what linked here originally to link to the new article name, thus orphaning this redirect. LazyBastardGuy 19:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We only delete redirects from moves if the article is very new, or the redirect is harmful. Otherwise we break the Internets. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, directs readers to exactly what they're looking for. WilyD 09:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirects from the old title after a move are helpful to avoid breaking links on the internet unnecessarily. The utility of this redirect diminishes over time, but there isnt an obvious benefit for deleting it as the old title isnt erroneous, the move was recent, and it was the title for a long time. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dejarik[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of fictional games#Board games. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MAD explains why pages which have been merged elsewhere should almost never be deleted. However, I believe this is a case where we can safely do that. As you can see from the brief history, there was never much to this as an article, and essentially only one sentence was added to the target page. Dejarik is no longer mentioned there, and since the target page is no longer in-universe-centric as it was in 2005, it's likely that the fictional game will never again be mentioned there. Is this minimal attribution worth maintaining a misleading redirect? I don't think so. BDD (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Floating processing unit[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC) retarget to Floating production storage and offloading. WJBscribe (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Floating processing unit → Floating-point unit (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] Juhuyuta (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the best of my little and confused understanding, floating processing unit (FPU) has multiple different meanings in two or three industries: in electronics engineering, it is an uncommon but existing alternative name for the Floating-point unit (FPU) as can be seen from academic texts like this: stewart.cs.sdsu.edu where it says: "There are several properties that characterize the behavior of a floating processing unit (FPU) in performing arithmetic." In geology-related industries the term floating processing unit is used to describe structures that float, see for example the caption of the photo here: twitter.com where it says: "On top of Floating Processing Unit (FPU) Joko Tole at Terang Field". The term floating processing unit is also used in some non-electronics patents, for example this: xjishu.com where it says "The Utility Model Relates To A Floating Processing Unit." The redirect seemed most useful for the floating-point unit since the fact that an academic text uses floating processing unit to mean floating-point unit seemed to have more weight than the other uses like those described. However, perhaps it could be turned into a disambiguation page if someone more knowledgeable with the meaning of floating processing unit in, for example the oil industry (which is probably what the twitter photo is), could find some more sources. Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also see worddetail.org. However, it seems to be a rarely used term, at least for the electronics industry. It could be deleted without being a loss, probably, but perhaps it's useful as a redirect for the floating-point unit since the academic text linked above seems to indicate that some people use it to mean floating-point unit. Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • A further link about the relation of floating processing unit to the oil industry is this: allacronyms.com which seems to be a semi-automated entry that says that FPU is an initialism for floating processing unit and is related to "Topics by tags: oil field and Oilfield." Can someone find if we have an article about the concept in the oil industry? Then perhaps we could make it a disambiguation page with links both to the oil-related article and the floating point unit article. Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article at Floating production storage and offloading, which has redirects at Floating oil production system and Floating Storage and Offloading unit. There are also as of 2013 floating liquefied natural gas but that seems to me overly specific since and a bit CRSTAL since oil and gas tend to be extracted together. Is that any help? Si Trew (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The DAB at FPU which I never thought to look at lists both senses. So perhaps it should go as {{Redirect to disambiguation page}} there, but I am not sure that is very satisfactory. Si Trew (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • create DAB. As someone who studies floating-point units in the CPU sense, I can't imagine that the current direct target is common enough that it needs to be a redirect rather than a DAB. Hobit (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you suggesting to create the DAB? There is already one at FPU. Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: I worked on floating point units many years ago built to the original IEEE-574 spec and know a lot about it. I also worked designing software for the oil and gas industries for seven years, and am familiar with floating platforms, and software for them that uses floating-point arithmetic. But expert knowledge is worth nothing on Wikipedia, so I sometimes give up. Where do we put it if anywhere? Si Trew (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that "Floating processing unit" itslef be a DAB to the two or three appropriate articles. And wow, that's a variety of experience. Cool. Hobit (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FPU, the DAB, has floating production unit as a redlink entry and links that as the blue link to FPSO (which is a bit weird cos that is a redirect itself so doesn't really help in the DAB's one-liner). Would it be better to just redirect it to the DAB at FPU and then tidy that up a bit? Otherwise you have a DAB to DAB, which I think would be overkill when it's already at FPU which is not overloaded with entries itself. Si Trew (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed that, sorry nodding. The DAB is floating production unit and this is floating processing unit. Surely the two are synonymous? The plot thickens... Si Trew (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still say, redirect it to the DAB at FPU. I can't see why you would want to hatnote the two when there are also other senses listed at that DAB. Then we can tie it up on the DAB. I don't want TWODABS or a DAB to DAB but I don't see why these should be hatnoted and still nobody can find the article they are looking for: I am not showing off but just saying, for a general reader, would they ever be able to find "floating platform" that way? floating platform does not exist but if it did it should probably go to floating bridge or something. IEEE floating point should probably be listed there too. Since there are multiple, diverse senses, hatnoting the two I think is confusing when there is a DAB: perhaps the DAB itself should be renamed somehow?
To declare an interest, I am a Member of the IET, formerly the IEEE. Si Trew (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I've become lost in all this jargon, but are there more than two uses of this phrase at the dab? --BDD (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first comment in this discussion implies that there at least three different things referred to as a "floating processing unit", but even if there are only two of them a disambiguation page is appropriate if there is no primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are they all mentioned on the dab, though? --BDD (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but a dab needing additional items is not a reason to delete a redirect, it's a reason to fix the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't want to delete. It's just that if we'd be sending readers to a dab over two uses, I'd rather pick one and hatnote the other. If there are three or more uses on the dab, then retargeting there makes sense to me. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why must there be a primary topic? Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't have to be, but if there is, we save readers looking for that topic a click. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Партугалія[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. There are no convincing arguments made below that these redirects should be exceptions to the general consensus noted at WP:FORRED. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not related to any of these languages. Gorobay (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ^ Nedgreiner (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect neither really harmful nor very recent. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Portugal has no affinity for Cyrillic. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. WP:UE users of these redirects will find no information in Cyrillic on English Wikipedia, therefore will mislead them into thinking they should find such on here, but all articles on English Wikipedia should be written in English. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, with no ambiguity. No argument has been presented for deletion, nor do I believe any exist. Certainly an indefensible position for anyone trying to build an encyclopaedia. WilyD 09:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Awhile back we had some redirects up for deletion because they were basically transliterations (and typos thereof) of various names. These don't belong here, they belong on the Russian Wikipedia. We can't and should not have redirects in every language and every possible common typo thereof. The precedent set by consensus so far (I'm lazy and don't feel like finding links for those discussions at the moment but rest assured they exist) is that redirects such as these are unneeded and unhelpful. "They're not hurting anyone" isn't a sufficient rationale for keeping, because it enables redirects such as these to be created ad infinitum in every language. Let's stick to English-language redirects except in extraordinary cases, and a case of Russian text linking to a Portuguese-speaking country at least a quarter of a world away certainly does not qualify. LazyBastardGuy 15:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. --BDD (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EN.WP's database is not a translation tool. — Scott • talk 17:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 70.24 et al. Si Trew (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Нас Не Нагонят[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 15#Нас Не Нагонят

Марк Аврелий[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not related to any of these languages. Gorobay (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep valid VIAF alternate name. Redirect neither really harmful nor very recent. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    So it belongs in Wikidata; not English Wikipedia. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Marcus Aurelius is the very definition of a Latin alphabetic primary language topic, being from the place where Latin was the language of the nation. There is no affinity for Cyrillic which did not even exist at the time. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. WP:UE use English, not Cyrillic, as there is no Cyrillic written information on English Wikipedia for this person, this is misleading people to think such information exists on this Wikipedia. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, which is the whole point of an encyclopaedia. Otherwise, why do we bother? No one has suggested a reason for deletion, nor can I imagine any, but I'd like to take a particular moment to laugh at the obviously counterfactual assertion that Marcus Aurerius is not a relevant topic to the third rome. WilyD 09:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments two posts above. LazyBastardGuy 15:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EN.WP's database is not a translation tool. — Scott • talk 17:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Тотал[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Russian. Gorobay (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep For some reason this was getting a huge amount of hits in 2008, (it still gets a few), so it's a good redirect. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete No apparent connection between this French oil company and the Russian language. On Russian Wikipedia, "Тота́ль" is the Cyrillic rendering of the company name. If Google Translate is correct, this form is "Totals." --BDD (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rich - both aren't mentioned yet the article, so would be good to have them there first. Even so, translating multi/international orgs may be useful but out of our .en scope. Widefox; talk 17:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from BDDs findings, and a lack of Russian connection. If usage is a justifiable concern, possibly a retarget to the dab Total. Widefox; talk 18:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ^ Nedgreiner (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 18:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary. This is a company from France, so the native language is French, which uses a Latin-derived alphabet, not Cyrillic. WP:UE, no information can be found written in Cyrillic, so this is misleading readers into thinking Cyrillic information is available on English Wikipedia. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just a "company from France" it is one of the biggest companies in the world, a global player. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No one has suggested a reason for deletion, nor am I able to make one up. WilyD 09:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EN.WP's database is not a translation tool. — Scott • talk 17:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    FORRED is an essay, and does not suggest deleting redirects. It simply advises against the mass creation of foreign language redirects, without I might add, a convincing rationale. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Эўро[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 15#Эўро

Кенан Имирзалиоглу[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Serbian. Gorobay (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is a Turkish actor, so has no affinity for Serbian. Turkey uses the Latin alphabet, not Cyrillic. Turkey is not Turkmenistan. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, without which the whole encyclopaedia project is pointless. No one has suggested a reason for deletion, and I don't see any. WilyD 09:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, again we can't just have every possible way to find an article in every language. This isn't the Serbian Wikipedia, it's not the Russian Wikipedia, it's not any edition of Wikipedia that's based in Cyrillic. It's the English Wikipedia, and barring certain possible exceptions our redirects should be English only. We can't compensate for every possible search query for a subject. LazyBastardGuy 15:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Стафордширски бултериер[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Bulgarian. Gorobay (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:UE this is most emphatically an English-language topic, being as this breed was developed in England, so has no affinity for Bulgarian. WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sends readers to the content they're looking for, which is a necessary function in an encyclopaedia. No one has suggested a reason to delete this, and I can't think of any. WilyD 09:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in addition to my previous comments on such redirects I would also like to ask, Why is someone who is searching for this topic in a Cyrillic language on the English Wikipedia? LazyBastardGuy 15:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EN.WP's database is not a translation tool. — Scott • talk 10:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Універсалії (значення)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Involved close, given the state of the backlog, per WP:IAR/WP:NOTBURO, and with clear consensus. Contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Ukrainian. Gorobay (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the topic has no particular affinity for Cyrillic, as it is a disambiguation page for English Wikipedia. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. WP:UE use English for topics with no particular affinity for other languages. If they were searching using this they probably want an entry written in Ukrainian, which English Wikipedia does not provide, as why else would you write "disambiguation" in Ukrainian? This redirect isn't even "Універсалії"; and were this topic to have some affinity it would have been "Універсалії (disambiguation)" -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete, again I ask why someone using this script to search for topics is on the English Wikipedia. Why? Also, appeal to my previous posts on this page on similar redirects. LazyBastardGuy 15:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EN.WP's database is not a translation tool. — Scott • talk 17:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Солений огірок[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Ukrainian. Gorobay (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ^ Nedgreiner (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect neither really harmful nor very recent. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete the topic has no particular affinity for Ukrainian. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. WP:UE use English for topics with no particular affinity for other languages. If they were searching using this they probably want an entry written in Ukrainian, which English Wikipedia does not provide. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs users to the content they're looking for, which is the purpose of redirects, and necessary to make encyclopaedias useful. No one has suggested a reason to delete this, nor can I imagine any. WilyD 09:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD and my previous posts which I'm too tired to repeat. LazyBastardGuy 15:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EN.WP's database is not a translation tool. — Scott • talk 17:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

T:OU[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1. Original meaning is not used any more. "OU" stems from "other uses", which was the early general name for hatnotes. Nowadays hatnotes cover more, like {{main}}. So the wording, and the abbreviation, have no obvious association with the target. 2. Mainspace pollution by XNR. The page is actually in mainspace. Since it redirects to template space, we must be critical to allow this in content space. This redirect does not serve enough to keep it in content space. 3. Non-transcludes. Since it uses the WP:pseudonamespace "T:", it does not transclude the target page as is expected for a template. {{T:OU}} fails (also without the current CfD tag). 4. Background: the history shows me as a creator, 2 years ago. That happened after a move, and so was not an intention. DePiep (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier RfD in a list, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_18#T:WPTECH, -DePiep (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orphan and Delete per main-space pollution. Caveat there is a trickle of hits.All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Hits for a badly named mainspace XNR -- are we supposed to give any weight to that? -DePiep (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Wikipedia is made for users, not users for Wikipeda. (And I don't mean just User:s) All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 15:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_31&oldid=1136083258"